Click on this

[Ron Ecker]

I used to think that Bush may have made the call to establish a record of where he was at the time of the assassination. But then it dawned on me that his public speaking engagement was all the record he needed. He must have made the call for some other reason. And, Tim, before you say it again, it wasn't out of a legitimate concern to help "catch the killers." We're talking about a spook who would become head of one of America's two most important crime families of the last decade or so of the 20th century and so far all of the 21st.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

That mention of the Sheraton reminds me that papers, one of which had the phone number of the Sheraton, were found

under the frig. in the apartment after Ruby had his things moved out.

Of course there is no way to prove that Ruby ever called Bush at the Sheraton.

As for the phone call which he should have made before the assassination?

Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?

One way to double check his whereabouts would be to determine the time his friend's jet landed at Love Field.

I mean check official records...police generally don't rely upon the word of a person who may be a suspect.

I agree, Chuck.

Despite protestations to the contrary, I believe that the photo

from the Curry book LIKELY DOES SHOW BUSH. I think the

speaking engagement was to establish an alibi for the noon

hour. Having people say things is easily arranged. Time frames

are not known for sure. Never explained is why he and Barb

were in Dallas that morning, skipped town during the parade,

and returned afterward. WHY WERE THEY IN DALLAS AT THE

SAME TIME AS NIXON? Did they meet each other there for

some purpose? If the photo was as late as two p.m., that

leave an hour and a half to return from Tyler by air and get

downtown. I believe Nixon and Bush were among the group

behind the assassination, and both were in Dallas on assn

business.

The original negative of the photo may hold the answer,

since it could be enlarged sufficiently to make sure.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

Peter wrote:

It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!

Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!

[Chuck Robbins]

Peter wrote:

It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!

Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!

You conveniently failed to remark upon the possibility of there being a record available to establish whether or not Bush

got to Dallas at the time his wife gave in her book.

Let's not ask Bush what time he got to town because he can't recall whether he was in Dallas at all that day.

Now that is one heck of a memory lapse, wouldn't you say?

Funny, but you are the only person who made mention of Bush behind a fence with a gun.....now...

that is garbage!

It would be a refreshing change to see you actually ADD something to a topic rather than just giving one of

your standard derogatory responses, which, by the way, seem to be designed to divert/pervert said topic.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

The man with a sense of smell is the one who winds up with the treasure.

To the man without...everything is garbage.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Chuck Robbins

[Tim Gratz]

Chuck, without a scintilla of evidence that Bush was involved in the assassination (perhaps to further the career of his good friend Lyndon Baines?)-- when Bush got to Dallas is of no relevance whatsoever. None!

Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!

Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.

I was a left-wing college student in 1963, and accepted without question the story that a left-winger shot JFK for about 20 years. So somehow I find your argument to be utterly baseless.

[Chuck Robbins]

Chuck, without a scintilla of evidence that Bush was involved in the assassination (perhaps to further the career of his good friend Lyndon Baines?)-- when Bush got to Dallas is of no relevance whatsoever. None!

Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!

Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.

Tim....searching for evidence which might prove the Bushes lied about their whereabouts is not irrelevant or

unreasonable.

Would finding that evidence change your point of view? I doubt it.

I will not bite at your bait to switch the topic to anyone other than Mr. Bush. Nice try.

Manipulation 101 starts a new class this semester. You might want to brush up.

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I am totally willing to accept that GHWB was in the CIA in 1963, and was somehow involved in the assassination, whether through the CIA, Johnson, or DeMohrenschildt. Wouldn't surprise me at all. What would surprise me is that he was in Dealey Plaza. I mean, why would he be? Even as CIA Director he was not an operations guy. He was what by all reports he's always been, a loyal, friendly rich guy introducing one rich guy to another, smoothing things over and patting harder-working guys on the back. Sure, he'd been a pilot in WW2, but that didn't end so well, and the man hasn't got his hands dirty since.

BTW, the clean cut guy in the photo could have been one of 100,000 clean cut Texans in 1963.

[Tim Gratz]

To Ron: There is no question that most of the early attacks on the WC came from left-wingers. And just look at the political composition of the members of this Forum.

Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.

[Chuck Robbins]

To Ron: There is no question that most of the early attacks on the WC came from left-wingers. And just look at the political composition of the members of this Forum.

Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.

When those political traditions and institutions are suppressing the truth...continuing to support them is tantamount to treason.

You manage to write alot without really saying anything.

Denial, denial, denial, is the other side of the coin which is lies, lies, lies, both of which are the cornerstones of propaganda.

And all of this has what to do with determining whether or not it was Bush standing on the steps in the photo?

[Tim Gratz]

Chuck wrote:

And all of this has what to do with determining whether or not it was Bush standing on the steps in the photo?

The idea that that was GWHB has been demolished by Ed. It is no longer worthy of a single thought or sentence. It is as foolish to keep thinking about that as it is to continue to defend the SBT (not that you or I do that of course).

By the way, be careful of who you accuse of "treason". You will look like those idiots in Dallas who sponsored the ad accusing JFK of treasson.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Tim Gratz